>The fact is, materialism DOES have it limits. The hippies were one
>expression of that realization, and look how much a couple thousand of
>them scared the bejezus out of the big cigars, until a new wave of
>bc-wannabees showed how readily hippiehood and its spin-offs could be
>marketed to the millions.
>
>It's one thing to have the have-nots revolt against a system that
>exploits them and denies them satisfaction. It's far more devastating
>to have the heirs of affluence turn their backs and say the game is just
>a waste of time. It delegitimates the whole affair from a truly
>unexpected direction.
I wonder if this is not a good expression of the limits of the politics of desire. What Paul is describing, the transition from an acquisitive society to a ludic society, is no revolution at all. Clinton is in the White House, Bill gates has overtaken the big blue and the hippie generation have come home at last. What's the difference? Only that they are lazier and less decisive, but they are certainly just as destructive.
>to have the heirs of affluence turn their backs and say the game is just
>a waste of time
is not really a challenge to the system as a whole, just the ennui of a system that has run out of steam. -- Jim heartfield